the advantage of abstraction is that one could talk about such things and even small children will understand.
good for me, in this posting I’ll talk about things of which I too have little experience.
this is a posting about gender-topics and about time-management. more exactly freedom is what I’ll talk about.

but first the basics: in one aspect human is very similar to animals, biology dictates we must procreate.
this is done by a mechanism we commonly call “pleasure”. funnily same mechanism is used for other biology-dictates too.
being together with others is pleasant. seeing a beauty of the preferred gender is pleasant (regardless of clothes).
cuddling is pleasant. but also eating fat and stark/sweet is pleasant. same for relaxing and entertainment.
a work where you encounter new situations all the time is a pleasant work, although tiring.
a work where nothing new happens and everything is clearly predictable is pleasant.
all these things are pleasant because they ensure survival and offspring.
in a human life we must make sure all these things are present, in equal quantities.
if not, we have a problem with our mind, imbalance of them leads to mental imbalance.
in the least depression will evolve if we don’t take care to be pleased all the time.
and doing just one of those things all the time soon will make pleasure decline.

beyond all those pleasures there further exists a peak in pleasure within some activities.
pleasure is created by many different chemicals our body will produce.
so just do something that creates pleasure, and keep doing more such things.
that’s how offspring is created. so in a way a kiss will make you pregnant.
but the very kiss is only a beginning. really at fault is the human indulgence.
one could keep kissing for hours, no babies will be made this way.
but indulgence means we want more, we want multiple pleasures happening at the same time.
so add to the kissing more and more ways of touching each other.
that’s how nature would lead us to pregnancy like kettle to the butcher.
so next time you blame “kissing” for an unwanted pregnancy, blame your indulgence instead.

talking of indulgence I must also clarify the concept of “rape”:
a heterosexual man, standing naked in the shower, approached by another man from behind will feel raped.
sexual activities between those two will not be consensual, the hetero wont like what’s happening.
maybe there will be physical arousal. maybe the hetero will experience orgasm. it wont be pleasure!
same when a man rapes a woman, she might get physically aroused and orgasm, doesn’t mean it’s pleasure!
in both cases psychological damage will be the result. getting raped simply does count negatively in pleasure.
next time the raped person will have sex, memories on the rape will reduce the pleasure-gain.
sexually harassing children will have similar effect on them. no matter if they manage to orgasm.
the difference in strength/size and authority will simply make this a totally unpleasant experience to them.

when talking of pleasure one must stay on the abstract level. calling an orgasm “pleasure” is dead wrong.
sometimes sex between wife and husband can also be bad for pleasure when not consensual.
just imagine you’d wake up and some daemon has moved your hand with the purpose of masturbation.
it’s like a drinker complaining that the drinking just happens automatically.
whatever addiction, it’s always a loss of control. rape is much much worse than that!
if it’s adult-to-child, gay-to-hetero, man to woman, woman to man, even woman-to-woman, rape is rape.
on the other side there is the mysterious force of emotional arousal. no such thing during rape.
physically aroused is a possibility during rape. a man being raped can have an erection, even when wrong gender.
but such a man would never call himself horny. on the other hand a man can be horny without erection.

there’s clearly a difference between erection (physical arousal) and horniness (emotional arousal).
sexuality is only fun with the latter, no matter if man or woman. so a mild form of rape is sex without horniness.
calling that rape is of course an overstatement. am I raping myself when masturbating without horniness?
similarly it would be an understatement to claim rape happened because of indulgence.
so better keep rape and indulgence-triggered impatience apart.
still, both are conceptually the same: non-consensual sexuality. just a difference in severity.
in effect both are bad, in the long run they have similar effects: sex is no fun anymore.
the offender often wont acknowledge the wrong-doing though.
most immature people believe physical arousal to be such a magic thing that “forces” people into sex.
as I’m saying 3 paragraphs earlier, it’s indulgence and not arousal that forces things!
and even if it is arousal that had any intense effect there, then it’s the emotional and not the physical arousal!
so, dear rapers and misogynic husbands:
please don’t push responsibility to your erection, it’s your indulgence that’s at fault for your sexual assaults!

the human body is full of drugs, created by the human body itself. naturally!
various mechanisms trigger their creation, especially activities that cost a lot of effort.
those efforts mainly trigger drugs we experience as pleasant, thereby human always tries to do something.
humans don’t croak nor sing to attract the opposite gender, so we must actually walk around and seek people.
this way those internally-self-made drugs in our body are showing us what we have to do, give us a meaning.
it’s sort of like the game where a blind-folded person has to seek something by help of others shouting.
in this game it’s common that such other people refer to your activities by giving a temperature-analogy.
same way also biology knows different degrees of motivation. sexuality being the hottest, in terms of pleasure.
we are guided by biology, by the internally created drugs, all with the goal of pushing us towards procreation.
to us it’s like a game, to biology it’s essencial for our species to keep us under influence of those self-made drugs.
all those drugs in our body are gradually created and gradually removed over time, all the time.

physically there is a limit on how quickly those drugs can be created.
but not the body-parts creating them are the bottle-neck. there must be the chemical components present to create them.
our blood is saturated with those too, they come from our food, directly extracted by the body, or by bacteria.
when there isn’t enough food, we also lose the ability to be happy, sexuality loses its appeal.
same happens when too much pleasure-drugs were created by the body. the pleasure gain will decrease as raw material decreases.
that wont be noticed of course, more and more of those drugs accumulate. but the speed of this increase wont be what it used to be.
so depending on what you eat, there is a limit to how much pleasure you can get out of pleasant activities.

this makes us independent from the nature’s dictate to eat and procreate!
instead of doing what creates the most pleasure at once, let pleasure build up in small steps.
then keep it at the high level by adding more and more pleasant activities, by living on your toes.
our mind needs a certain level of pleasure to function properly, otherwise it will have no motivation to live on.
most people’s strategy is to have sex regularly to get a boost of pleasure, to keep up this level.
one short activity, taken like a pill prescribed by the doctor, and your mental functionality is ensured.

but is sex really so much more efficient than letting nature take its course?
well, an alternative, commonly employed, is to eat all the time, or to ingest drugs directly.
alcohol, cigarettes, tea/coffee, all those are legal drugs commonly used here.
additionally excessive eating of salty fat and sweets or flour (the so-called “empty calories”) has similar pleasure-effects.
or claim you have a depression and get something prescribed by the doctor. also quite common.
however, all those things have a big disadvantage: they slowly poison the body.
in the middle-ages where people lived not much longer than 30 years, that poisoning was neglectible.
but nowadays the disadvantages overwhelm the advantages. especially the time-factor is important.
sex would take one hour per day, 20 cigarettes with 5 minutes each take up more than 3 times as much.
getting drunk and being drunk also steals much more valuable time than it’s worth. same with gluttony.
not to mention the money all these things cost.
on the other hand, sex, when done right can make 2 people happy at once. and it takes little time to reach satisfaction.
(and with satisfaction I don’t mean Orgasm, sex on its own fills up also a pleasure kind of satisfaction.)
this way the costs are minimal. provided you are experienced and capable of expressing it, you’ll find someone to share with.
so I would say, sex gets the 2nd place for efficient pleasure-creation, the others are 3rd.
1st place in efficiency is reserved for living on your toes. it costs nothing and no side-effects.

and with living on your toes I mean living on the edge (edge to insanity), living on the limit (limits of socially acceptable).
the idea is to do what you want whenever you want, while avoiding to do what you wanted to do in past — to eliminate bias.
well, not as irresponsibly as this sounds, just set up some goals and follow with them till pleasure wears out.
and don’t confuse lack of pleasure with unpleasant experiences. even unpleasant stuff can be pleasant too.
instead of leading a comfortable life you’re supposed to lead a thrilling life, most likely full of fears.
fears are uncomfortable, unpleasant, but the thrill gives us pleasure, to make up for that.
the advantage here is that living on your toes and following your goals get done all at the same time.
no additional costs needed, no side-effects, no waste of time. that’s a life worthy to give up sex for.

actually there is a side-effect: you sort of burn-out!
that’s basically about becoming insane from too strict focus on some area of interest.
imagine you’d be some woods, and you’d burn out trees in a certain area faster than they regrow.
of course eventually the damage will be so big that a very long time would be needed for healing.
however, picking individual trees in a wider area would result in better regrowth rates.
abstractly seen this is a common situation with all renewable resources that emerge from their neighbours.
a whole glade simply has less neighbours than the same area split into many small gaps sprinkled everywhere.
and our mind basically is such a renewable resource which depends on its neighbours.
one damaged brain-cell can be replaced by its neighbours, a whole area of damage can’t.
so if the same brain-area gets overused, it will need some time to get restored, to replenish its resources.
if it would be just a single brain-cell, other brain cells could temporarily take over some burden.
if you live on your toes burn-out is an issue, you must be careful. but it can be avoided.
the secret is to obtain the ability to stop anytime you want to, and to start again as if nothing happened.
life is boring, unlike in a film in real life there often is opportunity to rest.
living on your toes means at those times you cannot rest, or else the pleasure gained wont suffice.
but to avoid burn-out you also cannot continue being occupied with stuff that has no urgency.
it’s a thin line between activity and inactivity you have to walk there.
always you’d have to verify if thinking or action actually creates progress.
and if it doesn’t then you must stop it at once.
and this stopping must be done by starting to be occupied with something else.
preferably your new activity must be completely unrelated.
for example if you come home from work, from a stressful job, is an action-film really your best option?
first people get stressed out at their job and then at home they continue the stress with various media.
not surprising that burn-out is so common in our culture.
the things we see in the media are destined to make us think about our stress at work.
this way the stress never will cease, all the same brain-areas are under constant pressure.
mal-nourishion of those areas is really not surprising, no matter how much we eat.
also pleasure isn’t likely to be a result from that, things we do on auto-pilot wont make us happy.
with burn-out the auto-pilot mode is inevitable. too little energy left to do anything more sophisticated than that.
living on your toes, as the name suggests, is very dangerous and requires a lot of effort and preparation.
not surprising that it’s done so rarely, regardless for its high efficiency.
in past it required high spirituality, so you could always find a new task: meditation/praying.
now with the internet/phone following us everywhere, various activities there can take over the role of meditation.
mostly sects and religious organizations suggested this way of living. they did come with celibacy too.
now asexuality isn’t limited to spirituality and mysticism anymore. you don’t want children so have no sex.
just try to become rich, instead of wasting your time for sex or whatever pleasure-gain.

sexuality has become a functional activity in our society. it isn’t tied to love and procreation anymore.
we can have sex without getting babies, and we can get babies without actually having sex together.
this development degraded females from birthing-machines, the guards of our next generation, to sex-machines.
I mean of course, objectively seen it’s a degradation, in terms of our survival as a species. individuals might see it differently.
realistically seen, for females their sexuality costs more than for males, so they should have less sex than men.
but instead they merely up the price, as if all the dangers, from pregnancy to various diseases, could be nullified with wealth.
at the same time females invest more time than males into activities a behavioural scientist would call “mating”.
and when asked they claim it isn’t for that, they do all the fashion-stuff and the make-up for themselves and their female friends!
and in a way they are right, males also consciously act differently when females are around, claiming it’s “for themselves/friends”.
still a bad idea to obtain self-esteem from how other people see the person.
even worse is the idea to weight that judgement by the critic’s beauty/hierarchical power.

it isn’t unusual to apply different weight onto other people’s opinions.
a friend’s critique will have more impact than a stranger’s.
that’s a good thing since this way we can protect ourselves against critique.
surround yourself with people who use white lies instead of critique, and your self-esteem will rise.
then it wont matter that others complain about various traits, you can lie to yourself that the friends see it differently.
however, when the only person complimenting you is your friend, it rises the question about the friend’s honesty.
additionally once that friend would stop being a friend, those past compliments are doubted even more quickly.
and if that friend would die, suddenly the level of compliments would drop dramatically.
if the beauty/power of the person making a compliment does matter for you, loss of that beauty/power could be life-changing too.
and if you lose beauty/power, maybe those people with beauty/power will stop talking to you altogether.
better get the positive feedback from yourself only, not from others!
and if it’s from others, don’t weight each person’s opinions according to their appearance/fame.
otherwise, huge disappointment and total loss of self-esteem might be the result.

another strange observation about females is that regardless of the importance they had in history, they were treated badly.
they had no rights to vote, no access to higher education, they weren’t even expected to ever leave home.
understandable that with the power to grow up children access to weapons and military service were not granted to them.
biologically a hurt female is worse for a species than a hurt male, the procreation-speed depends on their health.
also a good excuse for making them stay at home. society back then was much more violent.
but it doesn’t explain why all the “important” jobs were disallowed for women. religion, politics and science were said to be not their forte.

as I learned from my own experience there is a good reason why females were disallowed to enter those male bastions.
sadly this experience cannot be put into words, at least not by me. I still will try my best to at least point into the right direction:
there is a difference between how males and how females think. this is an extremely small difference.
it’s this difference which can only be experienced, so if you didn’t then you will misunderstand what I’ll say.
one example of that difference can be found in the joke some feminist made about males by raising the questions:
why do men always have to buy a whole year’s supply for toilet paper?
why do men always have to buy merely a single roll of toilet paper to solve only the current shortage?
another example is my very own experience of playing computergames. I talked to females and they couldn’t understand.
but to me it is a source of pleasure to reload a game after making a mistake led to loss of game and to re-do that mistake.
I mean, I re-do the mistake intentionally, and I repeat that until the mistake doesn’t lead to loss of game.
this is a totally non-sense action, avoiding that mistake is what needs to be trained for a success in the game.
calling such a mistake-redoing “training” is the worst excuse for it anyway. the circumstances simply are much too unusual.
or just watch the film tin cup and tell me why the protagonist did repeat his unsuccessful attempt so many times, at the end.
all these things are abstractly seen just about males repeating some mistake that leads to failure till it doesn’t.
females never show any such behaviour, even less do they ever claim to enjoy doing it (although they might enjoy watching).

now lets emphasize what I do not mean when talking of differences between male and female thinking:
it definitely has nothing to do with one gender being more intelligent than the other.
neither do men do such things because of their stupidity, nor do females avoid that because of theirs.
it simply serves no purpose at all, not even the purpose to attract females nor to impress them.
well, it might impress them, they can’t do it, but it definitely wont tell them how good a husband/father the male will be.
also I should point out that above I described a visible behaviour, in order to define a way of thinking.
of course females could mimic that behaviour of males, maybe even enjoy it like males do.
but I’m talking here of a way of thinking! it’s this way of thinking that females cannot do.
or rather their creativity is lacking the possibility to come up with such ideas that lead to the behaviour I describe.
of course females can also act geeky, they can make cool stunts on skateboards and such.
also females can come up with ideas for new dance-performance or sports-choreography.
you name it and females can do it. the creativity of females simply has no limits, neither has male creativity.
also, I definitely am not talking here of differences introduced by education or whatever social stuff.
it’s rather a difference in how sexuality gets experienced. a way of thinking males “learn” from the way they have sex.
this way of thinking somehow resembles an up-down motion like the one males perform during their sex.
except it is a mental up-down motion, a pointless repetitive movement in the male’s mind.
but it also isn’t mental masturbation. again females are well capable of doing that too and they too enjoy it.
in mathematics people claim to enjoy creating short and neat formulas. again females I’ve met enjoy that too.
nor is it about females being more practical. and it definitely isn’t about the ability to think abstractly.
some say females are more down-to-earth than males, this impression is definitely a result of that difference in thinking.
however, using common dictionaries to understand that claim will only show that it really is prejudice, a misogyny.
most likely this different way of thinking is caused by huge amounts of testosterone, it definitely cannot be learned.
instead I have seen men lacking this way of thinking when their testosterone levels were low. I could be wrong though.

male scientists obviously noticed this difference (at least subconsciously).
and they took advantage of it to make science inaccessible by females.
on the one hand they argued in a way that other males agreed that females think differently.
and they used that argumentation to claim that females wouldn’t be capable of science.
even though that claim is false, the underlying explanations did ring true to males.
this way even a totally matriarchal society could be changed into a patriarchal one.
one has to always keep in mind that not all males want to suppress females.
so for true misogyny there always needs to be some way to convince those who don’t. and females must be convinced too.
on the other hand the whole science is built in a way that is appalling for females, they don’t like it.
again this is because of abusing the difference in thinking, and has nothing to do with science itself.
especially in mathematics I can see that some subjects attract more females than others.
coincidentally those subjects are practically oriented, thereby tempting to make the conclusion females would be more practical.
but in reality it’s just that those practical subjects were re-formulated so that all the male way of thinking is gone.
because of being useful in practice, that part of mathematics has much more attention.
there simply is happening a lot more development in those areas, a lot more people try to re-formulate those subjects.
so quite naturally, with increasing female audience, those have been reformulated for them too.
still, many topics of Algebra are also interesting for females, even though not part of applied mathematics.
they definitely haven’t been reformulated for a new audience since hundreds of years.
however, those topics speak the language of actual formulas. no buzzwords and no complicated concepts needed.
males did define most of the concepts and categories now in use for mathematical stuff.
and in order to explain how they arrived at those, the males just put up awkwardly heavy mental structures in their books.
in reality those things could be explained with much simpler words, but somehow males are too lazy to find them.
this way, while females are too lazy to understand them, males can take shortcuts through their way of thinking.
formulate those things differently, and females will experience the same difficulty level as males.
it’s quite a misogyny that science is structured that way, it serves no other use than to exclude females.
but it isn’t done consciously, it has grown that way by the mere fact that all those books are written by males.
so if you are a female and you have understood maths: please write a book about it! put it into your own words!
would also benefit males. those overcomplicated formulations fending off females definitely are difficult for males too.

I repeat what I said above: this different way of thinking is not related to intelligence!
when I say here that females have more difficulties with understanding science than males, sounds like a contradiction.
that’s why I also said that I cannot express this “difference in thinking”. that’s why I said my experience cannot be expressed.
fact is females dislike certain areas of mathematics, males do not have that problem.
also I tried to ask females why they dislike those areas of maths, but they couldn’t put it into words either.
they argued with uselessness and with difficulty, but couldn’t tell me what they failed to understand.
maybe I just asked the wrong people. or rather, I saw the complicatedness too, and failed to see the problem in it.
mind you, I am not really intelligent, IQ maybe about 86 or something. they definitely were more intelligent than me.

now religion uses the same mechanism in their study of theology, even more so than maths could.
require a priest to have studied and there will be no female priests. add some centuries of tradition and females don’t count.
politics too can require some sort of studies, but basically the same argumentation as with science can be used.

however, thanks to some us-president that is slowly changing. the end of the gold-standard in economy gives them a big boost.
with all the world being indebted to eachothers most of our money vanishes in the interests being paid.

imagine an island with a hundred inhabitants.
in addition to their money each of them is given 100$.
at the end of each year they must pay back 10$.
those 10$ will then vanish completely, never to be seen again.
after 10 years all the 100$ they once had will be gone.
and even more years later also the money they originally had will vanish.
that’s how our economy works.
in reality however there exist mechanisms to slow down that development.
still basically every 100 years our economy will have lost a substantial amount of money.

technically this isn’t true. value of money depends on how much economy produces.
also, it isn’t any bank who creates money, it’s the national bank or similar, provided the bank has lent money.
still, every time the money-creator gets the interest back, this money is gone.
so the person or institution making debts is effectively losing money till debts are paid.
the short-sighted economy however makes the assumption that everybody needs to have debts.
if you earn nothing at all and have no debts, you are quite stable.
get indebted and earn with that money some interest higher than the one you have to pay for it.
however, that interest you earn is paid by someone else, so seeing both of you as one system, money is lost.
either your customer will get broke and drag you with him, or this person will widen the amount of people involved.
so in effect, the amount your economy produces is getting cut off by all the people paying interest to some money-creator.
and in effect that amount of interest will rise and rise over time as long as economy dictates making debts.
we don’t notice that because it’s hidden in various statistics and is an extremely slow process.
we’re like the frog in the boiling water, the danger approaches too slowly for us to jump out before being cooked.

while in past the male was able to earn enough money for his whole family, in many countries this isn’t possible anymore.
so females must have a job too, they need education, they need access to jobs in politics and management.
in every family eventually both parents will need to have a high-paying job in order to afford having a child at all.
survival of the richest is what the future holds for us. but much more interesting is what happens inbetween now and then:
males who do not accept to have a wife who earns money of her own, wont get any wife at all unless they are rich.
males who do not accept a wife with higher education, will eventually not get a wife either (unless rich).
the consequence is that those males without a wife will become worse at their jobs, for psychological reasons.
females on the other hand will increase their self-esteem because of having a high-paid job.
in the end they will be the better managers because their self-esteem wont depend on mating but rather on money.
this way a company who doesn’t hire females into management positions will have bad quality structures and go broke.

management is extremely important for a company, it decides how the internal structures will work.
a bad boss will be lax towards the subordinates, will make bad decision that cost the company a lot to undo.
it really isn’t that females would generally be more fond of the money they earn than males are.
so this isn’t what makes them become a better boss. neither can one claim they would think only in terms of getting babies.
females just want to survive, and for that they need some money. also for them becoming rich would widen the choice for husband.
the major difference between male and female culture is that males often put up sexuality as their major pleasure-source.
this automatically also defines their self-esteem by the amount of sex they get, they get conditioned that way.
females however learned to have a much wider spectrum of pleasure sources, so a dry streak wont affect them much.
even a female addicted to sex will further gain pleasure from the mere fact she is treated more equally to males than in past.
this way for them the conditioning of self-esteem rising and falling with sexual activity is much much weaker than for males.
additionally, at first there wont be much females who want to make a career, so the ones who do will quickly get a husband.
therefore in the beginning of world-wide poverty female managers will get much more pleasure than their male competition.
afterall living together with your preferred significant other is a source for pleasure too.
in the end, some little amount of managers will be married females, and maybe same amount of males will be married too.
all the rest, those unmarried males, will be confronted with steeply rising price for their sources of pleasure.

of course, denied of sex the males will get another source for pleasure, but those wont get children.
and the reason why they will be childless, the reason why most managers wont have a wife, is because of everything being expensive.
at some point it will only be the managers, what is “upper middle-class” now, who will actually have the money to raise a child.
schools will cost and lack of school will further decrease chances for those children to get any children of their own.
housing, real-estate, any possibility to grow food, all that will become much more expensive.
afterall becoming rich will be everyone’s goal. quite unachievable without raising the prices.
also the abuse of earth’s resources plays an important role here. heating up the apartment will become more expensive too.
not to mention global warming and the prospect of dying when going outside without air-conditioned clothes.
poor people will simply die out for lack of food and health-care and energy, for lack of offspring.

all the cat-calling and the whole image of females as sex-objects, as something that must aspire beauty, that will be gone.
if a male would do cat-calling then, it would rather be about the female’s wealth than her beauty.
once females control management of the media, getting rid of such behaviour in males will be a matter of few generations.

in short, we’re about to experience a re-bound in the general trend to treat females badly. feminism is the future.
rich females will be the only choice males have if they want to get an apartment of their own, instead of living with parents.
since there wont be that much rich females, males will need to treat them better when wishing to be married to one.
and since there wont be much experienced females at first, companies will need to treat them better when wishing to hire one.
and companies will wish to hire one because through the very development of misogyny, historically, females are the better managers.